J. G. Knight

The applicant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, requested to withdraw its application against the responding party, Smith and Long Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for a declaration that the responding parties are a single employer or that a sale of business occurred under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties failed to file a response and failed to post the required Notice to Employees at the job site.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to post the notice at the job site.

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the responding parties to have accepted all facts stated in the application due to their failure to respond.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and sought a decision without a hearing after the responding party failed to file an Intent to Defend.

The Board declined to issue a default decision because the applicant failed to file the relevant collective agreement and the calculations for the claimed pension amounts were impossible to determine from the materials provided.

The matter was set down for a hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board previously issued a default decision declaring the responding party bound to the collective agreement and ordering damages.

The Board scheduled a hearing to allow the applicant to pursue additional damages accruing after the grievance referral, directing the applicant to notify the Registrar if it intended to attend.

The applicant failed to notify the Registrar and did not attend the hearing.

The Board emphasized the importance of timely communication regarding attendance to preserve scarce Board resources.

Due to the applicant's failure to attend, the Board ordered that no further damages were payable and closed the matter.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant requested that a related application be determined before any vote is held in the current application.

The Board granted the request and adjourned the application until the related matter is determined.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer failed to make required remittances under the provincial collective agreement.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the union's evidence that the employer failed to remit payments for several employees who worked on a water tower project.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $11,609.29 in outstanding remittances, plus $749.00 in costs for the application filing fees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging unjust termination of two employees who left the job site due to bad weather when no foreman was present.

The responding employer failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the employer was deemed to have accepted the facts stated in the application.

The Board found the terminations unjust, ordered immediate reinstatement, compensation for lost wages and benefits, and payment of the applicant's filing costs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, having regard to the agreement of the parties.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to pay late payment damages for fringe benefit remittances.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $35,670.00 in damages and $214.00 in filing fees.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to pay late payment damages for fringe benefit remittances.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $9,580.00 in late payment damages plus filing fees.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not to exceed one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board referred the matter to the Registrar to be rescheduled, noting the parties' request to relist the hearing for June 22, 2001.

The Board directed that if the matter is not relisted within one year, it will be deemed automatically terminated.

The applicant employees applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.

The responding party's allegations under section 63(13) were deferred to be dealt with following the vote.

The applicant, who is the sole proprietor and president of the employer, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The applicant claimed to be the sole employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions on why the application should not be dismissed without a representation vote or hearing, given the statutory provisions regarding managerial exclusions and employer interference.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The applicant sought to include employees of a related company in the voting constituency, suggesting section 1(4) of the Act might apply, though no such application had been filed.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed a representation vote for the employees of the primary employer, allowing employees of the related company to cast segregated ballots if they chose to vote.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The applicant sought to include employees of a related employer in the voting constituency, despite no section 1(4) application having been filed.

The Board directed a representation vote for the primary employer's bargaining unit, allowing employees of the related employer to cast segregated ballots if they chose to vote.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, noting that the union's objections regarding the applicant's status and alleged employer involvement could be raised before the panel scheduled to hear the application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for a unit of construction workers.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.